stating that district court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s action for failure to comply with a court order on its own initiative
How later courts described this case
- stating that district court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s action for failure to comply with a court order on its own initiative
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
TYRANCE DEWAYNE HILL, )
Petitioner,
Vv. No. 1:20-cv-00267-SNLJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On May 10, 2021, petitioner
Tyrance Dewayne Hill was ordered to file an amended 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition on a Court-
provided form. (Docket No. 2). Petitioner was given thirty days in which to comply. That time has
expired, and the Court has not received an amended petition. Therefore, for the reasons discussed
below, this action will be dismissed without prejudice.
Background
On December 15, 2021, the Court received a document from petitioner titled “Motion
Based on the All Writs Act 28 U.S.C. 1651.” (Docket No. 1). The motion was handwritten and not
on a Court form. In the motion, petitioner accused the Bureau of Prisons of abusing its discretion
“under Kay Fez/Willis,” which apparently resulted in him not receiving the proper jail credit.’
Because petitioner seemed to be attacking the execution of his sentence, the Court
construed the motion as an attempt to bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. See Nichols v. Symmes, 553 F.3d 647, 649 (8 Cir. 2009). However, the petition
Petitioner appears to be referring to Kayfez v. Gasele, 993 F.2d 1288 (7 Cir. 1993) and Willis v. United States, 438
F.2d 923 (5" Cir. 1971).
was not on a Court-provided form, as required, and lacked sufficient information to determine the
basis upon which petitioner sought relief. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.06(A) (“All actions brought by self-
represented plaintiffs or petitioners should be filed on Court-provided forms”).
On May 10, 2021, the Court directed petitioner to file an amended 28 U.S.C. § 2241 □
petition on a Court form. (Docket No. 2). Petitioner was given thirty days in which to comply. The
Clerk of Court was directed to send petitioner a copy of the Court’s § 2241 form to aid his
compliance. Petitioner was advised that his failure to submit an amended petition would result in
the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice.
The amended petition was originally due on or before June 9, 2021. On June 7, 2021,
however, mail sent to petitioner was returned to the Court as undeliverable. (Docket No. 3). The
Clerk of Court retrieved petitioner’s new location from the Bureau of Prisons website, and re-sent
the Court’s May 10, 2021 order, along with a § 2241 form for him to fill out. Since resending the
Court’s order, more than thirty days have gone by, and petitioner has neither filed an amended
petition nor sought an extension of time in which to do so.
. Discussion
As noted above, petitioner filed a document construed as an attempt to file a petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On May 10, 2021, he was directed to file an
amended petition on a Court-provided form within thirty days. On June 7, 2021, mail sent to
petitioner was returned as undeliverable. After retrieving petitioner’s new address from the Bureau
of Prisons website, the Court’s order, as well as a copy of the Court’s § 2241 form, was sent to
petitioner. The Court’s order advised petitioner that he had thirty days in which to file an amended
petition, and that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice
and without further notice.
More than thirty days have elapsed since the Court’s order was re-mailed to petitioner, but
the Court has yet to receive an amended petition. Moreover, petitioner has not sought an extension
of time in which to comply with the Court’s order. Indeed, since petitioner’s initial filing, the Court
has had no further communications with him. As a result, this action must be dismissed for failure
to comply with the Court’s order of May 10, 2021. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and Brown v. Frey,
806 F.2d 801, 803 (8" Cir. 1986) (stating that district court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s action
for failure to comply with a court order on its own initiative).
Accordingly, □
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b). A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability will be issued.
Dated this BA day of fi «5 7 , 2021. :
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, J 2
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE